Trump Tax Returns Leaked

Trump doesn't possess any of the criteria that would make me even want to be in the same room as him.

I think if potential investors saw his returns they might think twice, and that is why he doesn't want them released. These loses came from other peoples investments.

ml1 said:

there is legal, and then there's shady but legal. All of this fits into a pattern ........ but it's hardly anything to admire. It doesn't suggest upstanding character.

Sorry to chop up your statement, but just removing the parts that were specifically about Trump.... I think the biggest reason Trump is even a tiny bit competitive in this race is that the non-Trump-specific parts of your statement apply equally to Mrs. Clinton.

IMO, it would be a lot less depressing if the race was between Kaine and Pence at the top of the tickets.

ice said:

I think the biggest reason Trump is even a tiny bit competitive in this race is that the non-Trump-specific parts of your statement apply equally to Mrs. Clinton.

That is true but it is not the whole story. The principal reason that Trump is competitive is that he is the Republican nominee. The nominee of each of the two major Parties starts off with 35% just by being the nominee. That % will vote for the Democratic or Republican nominee whomever he or she is.

ice said:

IMO, it would be a lot less depressing if the race was between Kaine and Pence at the top of the tickets.

Less depressing to folks like you and me but more boring to the masses.

Tom_Reingold said:

Right, of all the legal charges that could be given to him, tax avoidance (which is different from tax evasion, right?) is the least likely to stick. There are enough criminal investigations going on to take him down if we wanted to take him down, such as the rape charge, the Trump University scam, and the illegal uses of his foundation. These three things, with the unadmirable way he does business and which the tax return exposes, ought to make it clear that he has none of the criteria that anyone wants as president. Unfortunately, the public has shown that it does not want to process this information rationally, so a rational appeal isn't sure to work.

What criminal rape charge is taking him down, now? What jurisdiction filed those? Who is the prosecuting entity?

I want to process the criminal rape charges information. rationally. Can you help?

They do not apply equally. There is no comparison.

I understand many people perceive that it applies equally however

ice said:

ml1 said:

there is legal, and then there's shady but legal. All of this fits into a pattern ........ but it's hardly anything to admire. It doesn't suggest upstanding character.

Sorry to chop up your statement, but just removing the parts that were specifically about Trump.... I think the biggest reason Trump is even a tiny bit competitive in this race is that the non-Trump-specific parts of your statement apply equally to Mrs. Clinton.

IMO, it would be a lot less depressing if the race was between Kaine and Pence at the top of the tickets.

I am not sure if rape charges against Trump have been filed -- but do a google search and there is plenty of information about the allegations. There are enough other reasons not to vote for Trump - and telling me Clinton is a bad person because the email bs is not enough to sway me away from voting for her.

ml1 said:

there is legal, and then there's shady but legal. All of this fits into a pattern of Trump entering into one failing venture after another, and when the business goes south, he's the only one who walks away whole. The creditors get stiffed, he gets to write all the losses off and not pay taxes (for maybe two decades, who knows?). And he somehow gets off with his Trump Tower penthouse, Mar-a-Lago, the jets, the golden toilet seats and a TV show. His background suggests he's qualified only as a con man, not POTUS. Sure it's all legal, but it's hardly anything to admire. It doesn't suggest upstanding character.

+10

mikescott said:

I am not sure if rape charges against Trump have been filed -- but do a google search and there is plenty of information about the allegations. There are enough other reasons not to vote for Trump - and telling me Clinton is a bad person because the email bs is not enough to sway me away from voting for her.

I would expect that if there is substance to the rape allegations, that more women will step forward. I have to believe that a man who likes young teens would have multiple offenses to his name. Maybe not. Maybe he tried it but didn't like it.

Good NY Times story by both Bush's and Obama's former ethics counsel on Trump's fiduciary duty to minimize taxes.

The story also explains that anyone going before the Senate to get approval for a senior position would have been dead on arrival had they refused to supply their tax returns.

And

In both the Bush and Obama administrations, a bad attitude about paying
taxes was a deal killer. Both of us saw instances of nominations that
were doomed by the arguably legal but unsavory use of tax loopholes, as
well as by the failure to pay Social Security taxes, the taking of
excessive deductions for home offices or the sidestepping of sales taxes
on out-of-state purchases. Explaining to the Senate and to the American
people how a billionaire could have a $916 million “loss carry-forward”
that potentially allowed him to not pay taxes for over a decade,
perhaps for as long as 18 years, would have been far too difficult for
the White House when many hard-working Americans turn a third or more of
their earnings over to the government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/opinion/the-white-house-rule-no-tax-returns-no-job.html

Jackson_Fusion said:

Tom_Reingold said:

Right, of all the legal charges that could be given to him, tax avoidance (which is different from tax evasion, right?) is the least likely to stick. There are enough criminal investigations going on to take him down if we wanted to take him down, such as the rape charge, the Trump University scam, and the illegal uses of his foundation. These three things, with the unadmirable way he does business and which the tax return exposes, ought to make it clear that he has none of the criteria that anyone wants as president. Unfortunately, the public has shown that it does not want to process this information rationally, so a rational appeal isn't sure to work.

What criminal rape charge is taking him down, now? What jurisdiction filed those? Who is the prosecuting entity?

I want to process the criminal rape charges information. rationally. Can you help?

Nothing is taking him down now. I don't know where the rape charge is at the moment if there is any in the legal system yet. Sorry I expressed that poorly.

BG9 said:

Good NY Times story by both Bush's and Obama's former ethics counsel on Trump's fiduciary duty to minimize taxes.

The story also explains that anyone going before the Senate to get approval for a senior position would have been dead on arrival had they refused to supply their tax returns.

One of the best points made by Tim Kaine in the VP debate was when he said that Pence had to give Trump his tax returns when he was being vetted for the VP spot but Trump won't release his returns so that the taxpayers can judge him.

Tom_Reingold said:

Nothing is taking him down now. I don't know where the rape charge is at the moment if there is any in the legal system yet. Sorry I expressed that poorly.

Rape is an extremely serious charge. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty including Trump. To my knowledge he is not even being investigated for rape. I would oppose his candidacy even if his personal life was as pure as driven snow.

Alleged Rapes/Sexual Assaults:

Trump: 1

Clinton: 10

Robert_Casotto said:

Alleged Rapes/Sexual Assaults:

Trump: 1

Clinton: 10

You as confused as Giuliani. HRC is running for President, not Bubba.

Robert_Casotto said:

Alleged Rapes/Sexual Assaults:

Trump: 1

Clinton: 10

Cool story, bro'.

Robert_Casotto said:

Alleged Rapes/Sexual Assaults:

Trump: 1

Clinton: 10

Guilt by association, huh? Did you forget that this is disallowed in the Constitution of the United States of America?

So that's it.. I won't vote for Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

so I guess we now know that at least one person thinks one rape is acceptable.

ml1 said:

so I guess we now know that at least one person thinks one rape is acceptable.

That's not what he wrote.

ml1 said:

so I guess we now know that at least one person thinks one rape is acceptable.

I expect that Giuliani will explain that everybody does it.

There's some chatter that Marla Maples is the one who anonymously sent the pages of the 1995 tax returns to the NYT. It would make sense. She was one of the filers of that return and has every right to show it to whomever she wants.

The guilt by association charge (alleged in your post) would be meaningful if the Clintons were like all the other couples who have been president and first lady. However, the Clintons are NOT like all other presidents and first ladies. For example, the Clintons have previously boasted "two for the price of one" (an acknowledgment by WJC that HRC would be a significant decision maker in his administration). Additionally, HRC, nor WJC, has ever rebuked this "two for the price of one" concept. Thus, it would appear that WJC will be a decision maker in a HRC white house. Thereby, making WJC's history of alleged rapes relevant. Alternatively, if HRC would declare that there will NOT be a "two for the price" policy in her administration then I would agree WJC's alleged rapes would generally no longer be relevant.

Tom_Reingold said:

Robert_Casotto said:

Alleged Rapes/Sexual Assaults:

Trump: 1

Clinton: 10

Guilt by association, huh? Did you forget that this is disallowed in the Constitution of the United States of America?

Every right unless their divorce decree has a confidentiality provision.

shoshannah said:

There's some chatter that Marla Maples is the one who anonymously sent the pages of the 1995 tax returns to the NYT. It would make sense. She was one of the filers of that return and has every right to show it to whomever she wants.

Rapes or none on his record, there is no law against the president's spouse from weighing in with opinions and advice, nor do I think there should be. I'm sure first wives have done it in every case, though more on matters women (ladies in those days) would have been interested in or allowed to speak on. Now the prohibition on topics is ostensibly lifted (right?), so yeah, maybe you'll have a rapist in the White House, and tough. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but do I think his advice could lead to good things? Yup, I do. I feel a lot of his ideas and policies have been well intended but didn't work out, but we all know more now than we did then, and I don't expect HRC to make the same mistakes.

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a daily, or perhaps weekly, newspaper column on all sorts of subjects. Edith Wilson is reputed to have actually run the Country after Woodrow;s stroke. Most people think Nancy Reagan had a major influence on policy.

RealityForAll said:

The guilt by association charge (alleged in your post) would be meaningful if the Clintons were like all the other couples who have been president and first lady. However, the Clintons are NOT like all other presidents and first ladies. For example, the Clintons have previously boasted "two for the price of one" (an acknowledgment by WJC that HRC would be a significant decision maker in his administration).

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/tp/first_ladies.htm

LOST said:

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a daily, or perhaps weekly, newspaper column on all sorts of subjects. Edith Wilson is reputed to have actually run the Country after Woodrow;s stroke. Most people think Nancy Reagan had a major influence on policy.

Not to mention her astrologer.

RealityForAll said:

Every right unless their divorce decree has a confidentiality provision.

shoshannah said:

There's some chatter that Marla Maples is the one who anonymously sent the pages of the 1995 tax returns to the NYT. It would make sense. She was one of the filers of that return and has every right to show it to whomever she wants.

ackshally, she doesnt have 'every right' (assuming it was her). if jointly filed, both must consent to the release to third parties.

Ergo, 'she' has 'no' right.

Robert_Casotto said:

RealityForAll said:

Every right unless their divorce decree has a confidentiality provision.

shoshannah said:

There's some chatter that Marla Maples is the one who anonymously sent the pages of the 1995 tax returns to the NYT. It would make sense. She was one of the filers of that return and has every right to show it to whomever she wants.

ackshally, she doesnt have 'every right' (assuming it was her). if jointly filed, both must consent to the release to third parties.

Ergo, 'she' has 'no' right.

The article I read said that one of the two joint filers can release it. I will try to find link.